Hi I have been conversing with flat earthers mostly on Youtube for over 4 years. I recently thought to check back with this site, as for some reason your average flat earthers on Youtube call the flat earth society controlled opposition.. When I got here I started looking around and immediately noticed how much more mature the content is here.

My main reason here would be to invite someone influential around here perhaps for a chat about the hundreds of gigs of observations I have done that don't seem to comport with what was being said about flat earth when I first came around over 4 years ago. I see Youtube flat earthers have about 100 different excuses for observations now for what we simply point out is geometry to the earth in front of us. Some excuses include - perspective, airys diffraction, angle of attack, angle of incidence, dirty air, atmospheric conditions and many more.

Some of the most notable tests I have done are on the Bonneville salt flats and the great salt lake (most times looking at salt lake city from 26 miles away on antelope island causeway) and looking and strongs knob with a 4k drone only changing altitude. I went with Jesse Kozlowski (professional surveyor of 40 years) and hit all the geodetic triangulation points with two very expensive gps devices. We also did two drives across i80 (about 40 miles straight and level) east to west getting raw ECEF data (x,y,z). We have also modeled this with an accuracy of under .5% of the claimed radius of the earth.

I am here in hopes to have a serious conversation with serious individuals who are looking for the truth and have cogent arguments. Most of the Youtube flat earth scene is a total shill festival with trolls and mouth breathers that have nothing to say but erff flat.

I came from a deep knowledge into conspiracy, I am not your average globe cuck. It took me two weeks of research to understand things like the equinox, solar / lunar eclipse, 2 celestial points in conjunction with lat / long - are extremely good evidence the sky is telling us the earth is spherical. So I also went out and did hundreds of observations with different equipment, we even brought a auto level out to antelope island for observations on buffalo point.

Also looking at even flat earth observations seem to show strong evidence of the earths geometry. We have correctly identified the peaks of Jtolans 120 mile mt san jacinto observations, showing over 6,000 feet of the mountain being obstructed. He also seemed to try and fudge his observation height, and also deleted messages when we came on nice as can be telling him about this.

Your pictures provide valuable information. In my opinion the current status of this matter is that we are past the point of single pictures. All day time-lapses are now desired to make progress on determining the matter of sinking. Sometimes bodies in the distance are sunken and sometimes they are not. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a time-lapse is worth a thousand pictures.

All day time-lapses are now desired to make progress on determining the matter (of sinking)

Why? What difference would/could be made by taking (for instance) this photo at varying times, or in the reverse direction?

(Note; the video author has re-visited to take it at different times, with the same result, and another YouTuber who apparently wanted to prove him wrong took a view from the hills in the distance, back towards the camera position shown here - with the same result.)

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

All of the above is invalidated by an observation which should not be visible on a globe, which you can search for and find plenty of.

Inconsistency makes the sinking ship effect invalid as a proof of a globe.

From your video:

Assuming that his work is accurate (I did not bother to check), it "almost" fits what refraction predicts, meaning that it doesn't fit what RET would predict without refraction at all.

Sizes and elevations never do agree with RET. Sometimes it can get close, but it does not agree with RET. It changes often, from day to day, even hour to hour, and requires another invented science to fill in the gaps.

Assuming that his work is accurate (I didn't bother to check), according to that author the mountain at the top left should be at a height on the left white line below it.

No, the photo was taken from an elevation of 210m. The bridge tower is also 210m. The highest of the hills beyond is over 400m.

IF the Earth is flat, the sightline from 210m to 210m MUST meet the hill at 210m or so. It does not. It passes clear over the top, missing the hill completely, missing where it should be, on a flat earth, by well over 200m. This is not explainable away by refraction, unless you can PROVE the presence of over 200 metres' worth of refraction

It never does agree. Sometimes it can get close, but it does not agree with RET. It changes often, from day to day, even hour to hour, and requires another invented science to fill in the gaps.

This observation changes? Really? Show us where you've seen it change. You may well have seen other, possibly sea-level observations change, but this one has not.

Here's the videos from the guy who tried to prove it wrong by photographing it in reverse, on another day, from the far hill back to the observation point of the one I cited above, and who ended up proving the first one correct, with a matching result.

This is what should happen if the Earth is flat;

... but this is what the actual observation was;

The line of sight between two points at 210m each passed clear over a 400m hill.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 12:37:10 PM by Tumeni »

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what RET refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

Questionable validity in its premise, in my opinion.

Didn't state anything like that. I mentioned no refraction, and doggedly insisted the lines of sight were straight, not curved.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

I'm not going to bother myself to look into that, but lets assume that it is accurate. You have stated that someone has verified a work that "almost" matches what refraction predicts, and relies on the basis of "The earth is round and light is curving, but it is only curving in the direction and amount that I want it to curve..." and "Here is my Round Earth curvy light compared to a Flat Earth with no curvy light."

Questionable validity in its premise, in my opinion.

Didn't state anything like that. I mentioned no refraction, and doggedly insisted the lines of sight were straight, not curved.

The author of your first video says that the observations almost match what RET refraction predicts.

See:

Then he says "FE'ers don't wet yourself yet" and brings up another mechanism that might correct the inaccuracy, and comes back and says that it does match what is predicted (by refraction).

Even if there are equations that could, as a general rule of thumb, predict where things would be on if the earth were a globe and light was curved in some sort of standard schema, verification of those equations is merely verification of equations of what would need to happen if the earth were a globe...

We already know that someone did study the matter for those equations by the mere fact that they exist. It is not a proof of a globe. If it is anything at all, assuming that everything which was posted is entirely honest and accurate, it is merely evidence for those equations which depict what would need to happen with curvy light if the earth were a globe.

There is no inaccuracy. The angular sizes are not the core point. The sight lines are.

If the Earth were flat, the sight line through the top of the bridge tower would meet the hills beyond at 210m or so, not pass above them. The hills are some 400m high...

I do not claim any refraction, curved light, whatever. If you claim these are a factor, then show their presence and/or effect.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

It certainly sounds like the content you posted is talking about a refraction analysis and how much the observations agree with it. From the YouTube Transcript:

Quote

16:50

atmospheric refraction is a known and well studiedphenomenon and will always occur to agreater or lesser extent on a sphericalearth because light traveling initiallyin a straight line towards the camerafrom an object will get closer to thesurface of the earth as it moves to thecamera and then again get further awayfrom the surface of the earth as itapproaches the camera[Music]but certainly in the case of thisobservation that's what will behappening and therefore light istraveling through different densities ofair and as we know different densitiesof a medium have different refractiveindex indices and therefore will causethe light to bend slightly to refract soatmospheric refraction should be takeninto account here and that will affectthis relative ball heights as they callit the relative height of these hills ona globe earth and that will affect theangular sizes so they've not use thecorrect angular sizes for any of theirobservations or any of their analysis

...

20:39

let's see what happens if we use figuresthat include atmospheric refraction andinclude the correct height for thebridge here is my version of their ortheir method again I've placed a rulerat the base of the bridge tower

Hence it is an admission and a claim that light is bending... but is only bending to how he desires it to bend.

It certainly sounds like the content you posted is talking about a refraction analysis and how much the observations agree with it. From the YouTube Transcript:

Quote

16:50

atmospheric refraction is a known and well studiedphenomenon and will always occur to agreater or lesser extent on a sphericalearth because light traveling initiallyin a straight line towards the camerafrom an object will get closer to thesurface of the earth as it moves to thecamera and then again get further awayfrom the surface of the earth as itapproaches the camera[Music]but certainly in the case of thisobservation that's what will behappening and therefore light istraveling through different densities ofair and as we know different densitiesof a medium have different refractiveindex indices and therefore will causethe light to bend slightly to refract soatmospheric refraction should be takeninto account here and that will affectthis relative ball heights as they callit the relative height of these hills ona globe earth and that will affect theangular sizes so they've not use thecorrect angular sizes for any of theirobservations or any of their analysis

...

20:39

let's see what happens if we use figuresthat include atmospheric refraction andinclude the correct height for thebridge here is my version of their ortheir method again I've placed a rulerat the base of the bridge tower

Hence it is an admission and a claim that light is bending... but is only bending to how he desires it to bend.

Now that is a bit dishonest of you! The claim that it is “only bending how he desires it to bend” is unfounded, as the transcript does not indicate his preferences or desires. Moreover, even if you do provide evidence of his desires, you have not demonstrated that the refraction somehow defers in obeyance to it.

No, the refraction here is in accordance with RE science and models, which was established long before this video.

Atmospheric refraction invoked by FE arguments, in contrast, usually have no mathematics or definitive models motivating their implementation. Hence, they are usually ad hoc, and employed in situ whenever a situation needs them to be there to preserve a FE framework.

In that sense, the light only seems to bend when FET needs it to. Perhaps this was your confusion.

The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

His desire is implicit in his assertion of a round earth and the 'science' of standard refraction equations that allows him to get the observation somewhere close to calculation.

The next step is to demonstrate that the premise or underlying mechanism is actually true. The fact that it's an old equation without good demonstration of the underlying mechanism behind it makes it more invalid, not more valid!

If you think you can do it, go ahead. Until then it is an undemonstrated hypothesis that has nothing going for it except for an equation which relies on, at least for the purpose of the discussion, another hypothesis -- a round earth. The argument is speculating on two different hypothecal equations, one an idealized earth, and another a compensation designed to get a result, and then claiming that result is a proof for both. Insufficient, fallacious, and embarrassing.

He's quite specific in NOT asserting round/globe earth, and his simple assertion is "not flat"

I need no "standard refraction" equations. The sight line through two levels of 210m must meet the 400m+ hills at the 210m level, IF the earth is flat. It does not. It misses the hills altogether, and is clearly way more than 200m off-target.

The observation, repeated from the hills looking back to this observer's position, on a different day with different conditions, shows the same.

These two observations are over a river valley where the river forms a small part of the distance between observer and target hill. Subsequent observations over the same bridge from different observation points show the same result, and subsequent observations out to sea from the original point also show sight lines which cannot exist were the earth to be flat.

I'm not going to post all of the author's videos, there's a host of them following the one above, most of which are there to address the criticisms from flat-earthers ( none of whom will actually go to the observation point)

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

His desire is implicit in his assertion of a round earth and the 'science' of standard refraction equations that allows him to get the observation somewhere close to calculation.

The next step is to demonstrate that the premise or underlying mechanism is actually true. The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

If you think you can do it, go ahead. Until then it is an undemonstrated hypothesis that has nothing going for it except an equation which relies on, at least for the purpose of the discussion, another hyopothesis -- a round earth. Speculating on two different hypothecal equations, one an idealized earth and another a compensation designed to get a result, and then claiming that result as a proof for both. Insufficient, fallacious, and embarrassing.

Your opinion of his desire as an inference is not relevant without evidence to back your claim, of which you have provided none.

Established modern science has a looooong publication record that stands as evidence and justification for using its models and laws.

Your opinion that it is “old” is irrelevant - the age of a claim is not an indicator of its truth.

Your claim that it is “without demonstration of the underlying mechanism” lacks evidence. It is a bald assertion, and easily rejected until you can support the claim with evidence.

Finally, you attempt to shift the burden of proof (which is becoming your signature move). Justification for the laws of refraction exists in the scientific record, and can be accessed by anyone interested.

If you wish to claim that this law is erroneous, then that is your burden, and until you choose to present evidence for this claim, simply stating so is insufficient, fallacious, and embarrassing.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 11:48:11 AM by QED »

The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

Kindly, you seem to have it backwards. You guys are the ones who came here and presented your equations as evidence and so it is your responsibility to present the supporting evidence.

I presented no equations. I showed a YouTube video with an observation that I assert could not be possible on a Flat Earth, with supporting diagrams t illustrate the principle behind it, and a further observation which is the reverse of the first one, showing the same result.

This is my supporting evidence, isn't it?

Do you agree, given the geography of the location, that if the earth were flat, the sightline from observation point at 210m through bridge tower at 210m, to a 400m+ hill should look like this? That the sightline should essentially be parallel to the surface?

EDIT - forgot picture

« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 05:28:21 PM by Tumeni »

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Kindly, you seem to have it backwards. You guys are the ones who came here and presented your equations as evidence and so it is your responsibility to present the supporting evidence.

That reply meets the criteria of a straw-man fallacy. I have presented no equations, and we are discussing an analysis of the law of refraction made by a third party. You previously admitted that these equations have been studied, and have even referenced them for your own use — although you called it “angular theory” (which does not really exist, we call that trigonometry).

You are free to change your mind now, of course, and state that your are unconvinced by the evidence. But I would caution you in doing so: your cherished YouTube video you intend to put on your wiki directly uses the law of refraction.

Nevertheless, your claim that the law of refraction is erroneous remains unfounded.

The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

I am seeing "Strawman! We didn't present that.... we only presented or are defending the video that presented that..."

Yes, you did present that to us with those actions.

If this is what you really want to talk about, who presented what, then I can predict that this discussion will not be going anywhere. We've had the same discussion here plenty of times before with the same result: We accuse of RE of waving a magic wand to make their model agree with observation and then there is some sort of statement of incredulity and that's the end of the matter. Little attention is paid to the inherent fallacy that is strongly insisted on.

The fact is that the observation do not support RET and a mechanism that curves light is needed to make it match.

I said that, given the lie of the land at the observation site, the observation was totally impossible IF the Earth was flat.

Again, as asked in #15;

"Do you agree, given the geography of the location (shown in the diagram at #15), that if the earth were flat, the sightline from the observation point (camera position) at 210m, through the top of the bridge tower at 207/210m, to a 400m+ hill should look like this? That the sightline should essentially be parallel to the surface? "

I make no assertion of bendy light, refraction, or other atmospheric effects. I'm not trying to "make something fit a round earth theory" here. I simply assert that the observation does not fit with a flat earth, and that there are multiple other observations from the same location that re-inforce the same conclusion.

(See image at #15)

Please don't go down the route of suggesting the photographer has misled us about his camera height. That's been done to death in the video comments. The camera height is correct. Likewise, the height of the bridge tower and hills beyond are all in public record and not open to dispute.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

I am seeing "Strawman! We didn't present that.... we only presented or are defending the video that presented that..."

Yes, you did present that to us with those actions.

If this is what you really want to talk about, who presented what, then I can predict that this discussion will not be going anywhere. We've had the same discussion here plenty of times before with the same result: We accuse of RE of waving a magic wand to make their model agree with observation and then there is some sort of statement of incredulity and that"s the end of the matter. Little attention is paid to the inherent fallacy that is strongly insisted on.

The fact is that the observation do not support RET and a mechanism that curves light is needed to make it match.

No, I would prefer to talk about the science. Remember, it was you who began this tangent line by personalising the idea to the debaters.

I agree with you, this discussion will not go anywhere. I wish to address the science directly, and everything time I try to bring the conversation back to that, it seems like you once again deflect it.

Why are you so keen on NOT talking about the science Tom?

I will try one more time. The video uses the law of refraction, which is a known law of physics which you have employed in the past.

You have claimed that this law is applied in error in the video. Despite numerous requests, you fail to elaborate on this claim.

Please elaborate!

I shall ignore any further avoidance or deflectionary comments you make, any further straw men attempts to change the issue, and further attempts to try to make me answer the question for you.

The matter is closed until you wish to discuss this as honest gentlemen.

The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!